Woman Hasn’t Used Money in 15 Years

none of us need money
none of us need people to tell us what to do either

we can take care of our self!

and thats how it should be

how we all live today is a LIE and control!

we are slaves to the system!

I'm not judging or saying I practice this. Simply stating FACTS

So why haven't you given up all those things yet?
You're disproving your own case when you say one thing and do another.

You don't need a PC and Internet connection, but here you are using both.
If you don't take your own beliefs seriously, why should others?

A response to arguments against moneyless living

Whenever civilised people comment on my online articles about the philosophy behind moneyless living, the same arguments against it - as a realistic model - inevitably emerge. They go something like this:

"My mother would have died of cancer if it wasn't for chemotherapy."

"That's all fine if you're a single man but he hasn't got a family to clothe and send to school."

or my favourite, "he's an unrealistic extremist, all we really need to is reduce our consumption."

If it is in a mainstream publication, I also get these types:

"I've got the right to choose."

"He's a communist", or

"If it was up to him we'd be going backwards and living like animals."

These are all really fine arguments. But whilst I'll respond to each one individually, the late, great David Fleming said it much better than me when he once said "Localisation stands, at best, at the limits of practical possibility, but it has the decisive argument in its favour that there will be no alternative."

Let me let you into a little secret: I call my philosophy 'moneyless living', simply because it gets people who've never heard of the word 'permaculture' curious enough to want to read more. I studied marketing, and the psychology behind it, for four years, something I obviously keep a little quiet about. Don't tell anyone. But the moneyless living label is just a gimic, really. What I am really talking about is a way of life where people live off the land in which they are based, in a community whose radius is defined by the extent to which they can have a real relationship, based on symbiosis and trust, with all within that radius. In modern civilisation that radius is roughly about the width of your house. But with a bit of courage - and less reading of the Murdoch Media - that radius really could be extended to the distance you can walk in a day.

The moneyless element really is secondary, it's only marketing. It just happens that within a 100% localised economy - one in which we actually trust those we live with every day - money becomes obsolete. Instead, people's reputations become their currency. Which means no need for laws other than laws of Nature, and certainly no need for police to enforce them - if you act like an ass everyday, eventually you don't eat. In civilisation, you can behave as destructively as you want regularly, as long as you do it within the confines of the law, and the cashier down at the 'local' Tesco won't really give a damn. They won't even know your name.

Whilst all those arguments against moneyless living (which from now on I'll intermittently call 100% local or Wild), are understandable, they're based on the delusion that anything other than a 100% local economy is sustainable. Civilisations - societies which have grown beyond a level in which people have a real relationship with each other or the land on which they dwell - depend on huge imports of materials and food, and - as Derrick Jensen, in Endgame, points out - is inherently based on violence and exploitation.

If you're unclear about this, go and ask the marine life in the Gulf of Mexico, the people of Iraq, or the 50,000 species each year who had to retreat so far from civilisation that the only place they could go was extinction.

So those who argue against a non-monetary economy (remember, read 100% localised economy), where money is seen to be as toxic as depleted uranium, are in fact technically insane, in that their belief system and behavioural patterns are not rooted in reality. Since the moment you were born you've - through no fault of your own - been fed a story about the world to the point where you don't even realise it's just a story, meaning it's impossible for you to even imagine a different story. If we go extinct, or at least have a dramatic reduction in numbers, it'll be because we're terrible story-tellers, nothing less. And completely lacking in imagination. And courage. But mostly a story-telling deficiency.

OK, that aside, I still feel it's important to address the delusional comments on articles anyway, if for no other reason than to save myself having to respond to them individually any more.

Let's start with the most popular, and emotive argument against. "My mum/husband/kid is only alive because of 'medicines' from industrialised society". On a basic level, yes, so is my Dad, and a few of my friends probably myself to boot. But that's not an argument for it - it just means we're all willing to sacrifice life on this planet to keep those close to us - whom our love is restricted to - alive.

This, in turn, stems from a deluded sense of self, or as Alan Watts once put it, the 'skin-encapsulated ego'.

On a less simple level, one of the reasons they or I had to use western medicine was because this current human culture killed both the plants, and any knowledge of them, that could have healed many of our ailments naturally a long time ago, leaving only the branded products in little plastic packets on pharmacy shelves left to chose from.

On a slightly more controversial, honest level, that dialysis machine may have saved your mum's life, but it's made up of thousands of components - oil, minerals, rubbers, and ores. The war against brown people and Nature which is required to acquire these raw materials kills millions of people every decade in the most violent circumstances, not to mention the billions of wildlife, their habitats and the entire planet that is home to us all. Western medicine, being based on industrialisation, kills far more dads than it saves, they're just not your dad; unless he's brown or black, in which case it may one day. In fact the industrialised infrastructure required for it will eventually kill us all. But hey, that's not so important, lets just bury our heads in the sand and pretend it won't.

The second most popular deluded argument: "That's fine for him, he's a single guy, he doesn't have a family to feed and clothe." True, I don't. And I've said throughout that within the economic model we live in now, it is easier for me to do it without a family. But that's not because Wild, 100% localised living is flawed, it's because the political and economic model we live in now is! So whilst it's a completely understandable concern, it's not actually an argument against. If you really care about your children, do whatever it takes to build them a world they'll have a chance of living within. The other option is a life of semi-voluntary economic slavery - or, more likely, an uninhabitable planet that even a Masters Degree in Media Studies won't save them from.

Argument number three is: "We just need to reduce our consumption and go a bit more local." Bullshit. This argument always comes from people who don't have a combined clue about economics and ecology, which means from 99.99% of the population. Most think economics is about money, not as a philosophical debate around how to meet your needs. For you to have one radiotherapy device/blender/van/dildo that will cost you less than the equivalent of 15 years of hard labour, everyone has to have one, otherwise the human investment in building the global infrastructure required to produce one is completely unviable and illogical. These gadgets require huge economies-of-scale to justify the R&D alone, and very specialised division of labour. This division of labour means that the bottom 95% of wage slaves hate - at the very least - five sevenths of their life.

Not only that, it also means that they are all completely disconnected from Nature and the stuff they consume as they no longer have time to produce their own needs (such as food, basketry, clothing), leading to alienation, isolation, purposelessness, consumerism and an endless list of social, ecological, and humanitarian crises.

So given this, a mere reduction in consumption is ridiculous - if we did all reduce, and I mean all of us and not just the tiny pockets of greenies who actually live in accordance to their beliefs - the global system that gives us all this stuff we're pathetically addicted to would collapse anyway, and we'd be forced to live 100% locally. That's Economics 101. Except they don't teach you it in those words.

Now, onto the the more mainstream arguments. Having said that, whilst they're rarely stated in the blog section of the online articles of green publications, the lives of those who read them would still suggest they do actually believe these arguments anyway. Lets start with this old one: "I've got the right to chose". That's right, you do. And I've got the right to chose too. Which means that if you chose to attack the rest of the community of life that we share the planet with - however indirectly you delude yourself the attack is - in a completely violent and exploitative way, then I can chose to stop you, the attacker, by whatever means is necessary.

Surely if you have the right to destroy, so have I, no? As Derrick Jensen points out, is violence - however indirect and silent - only for the powerful (in this case, you and me and six billion others) who construct ridiculous laws to legitimise and protect whatever they fancy doing?

"He's a communist". My only response to this is that life isn't just a choice between a few political and economic models we humans have constructed. In fact, there is only one model we can, in reality, live within, and that is Nature, a.k.a. Wild. Communism, capitalism, socialism - they're all just anthropocentric delusions.

"If it was up to him, we'd all go backwards and live like animals". You are. And we would. Except it is impossible to go backwards. We're travelling in spirals. By going forwards we eventually get back to a point close to where we once were, either upwards or downwards depending on how wise we've been. Does winter go backwards when it turns to spring? Does night go backward when it turns to morn? Will I be going backwards when I die and the illusion of separation from the rest of Nature finally dissolves?

Then you would finally live according to your true nature, and all that comes with it. It may not have the facade of comfort that aspirational TV tells us this stress-, anxiety-, fear-ridden culture has; but you know what, it's based in reality, it's truly sustainable (as a little bonus), and it's not based on exploitation and violence towards those we view as weaker. It really is to live amongst the rest of Nature to which we are invisibly linked - the boar, the cod, the squirrels, the earthworms, the bees, the shrews, the badgers, the deer, the swallows. What better way to live? Is it better to live beautifully and in harmony for fifty years, or to exist out of harmony and disrespectfully for all else for a hundred years, killing everything that gets in the way of you having a centenary birthday party.

Civilisation needs to go. Non-violently, preferably, but really by whatever means is possible. If the rapist is getting his way down some dark alley, you get him off the person he's attacking by any means possible first (therapy can come when his genitals are back in his pants).

Oh no, is this someone who was once inspired by Gandhi, preaching violence? No, I deplore it. I want an end to all unnecessary violence, which is why I want an end to civilisation and a beginning to 100% localised economy. By not doing anything you're deluding yourself into thinking you're living non-violently. You're not, so face up to it and respond appropriately. Inaction, in a culture such as the one we've been born into, is the greatest violence, as our entire lives are fuelled by violence and exploitation. Our global supply chains just allow us to delude ourselves into innocence.

Let me be clear. I am not Wild yet. In fact, I am far from it. But the process has begun inside of me. I've decided to be honest with myself. To stop deluding myself with gestures that make me feel like I am doing my bit. Is a rapist, who could rape every night if he wanted to but chooses to only rape once a week, doing his bit?

Filling the kettle half way, car-sharing, growing a couple of token tomatoes in the back garden isn't going to do it. Civilisation needs to fall in order for life - human and non-human alike - to flourish again. So instead of buying solar, go and be honest with yourself. Is photo-voltaic really sustainable, or are you - like I've done for the last three years - deluding yourself in order to align yourself with this reality so that you can feel good. If you aren't prepared to go on this journey, stop paying lip-service to caring about the Earth and all you share it with, because your behaviour says you don't.

By the way, I love you all. That's why I say this so brutally.

(*I've now moved to the land where we're planning the first moneyless village, and we're in the process of creating it as I write. So far it is looking fantastic and is a very exciting time, so I'll update you all on that in the next blog).

THE FREECONOMY BLOG is written by Mark Boyle, who has been living for over two years without money, and is the founder of the Freeconomy Community. He is the author of The Moneyless Man.

Then you don't believe in it strongly enough to do it yourself.
You don't value this system much, so according to your own actions others should not either.

LOL, I don't feel the least bit bad, and I'm not greedy in the least! I bought solar panels with my money, how does that harm the Earth? If I see a family in need and write them a check so they can pay bills and buy food, how is that doing harm? Could moneyless lady do that? Um, no...she could sweep their floor though...

You are judging me. This isn't pre-k. "You don't do it so y should I" Thats the mentality that leads us nowhere. Maybe I need to tell u to better tell myself. But why wait for me to make the move, why do u need others approval? Don't be a follower. I've stated the facts now lets all do something about it. Facts can't be disproven.

means it can be done, but most of the sheep obey follow what big daddy says. if dog shits had wealth because the elite said so, people would be scooping them up from sidewalks next day.

Money doesn't grow on trees...you have to actually do something of value to get it...and then trade it for other things you need...it's a pretty smart system...

And? Did you not just post a long rant judging others and their behaviors?

Once again, you seem to be a hypocrite about this.



No, the mentality that leads us nowhere is people telling others what to do or how it should be done but not doing so themselves.



Here is a fact: you don't value your system very much.
Evidence: you don't even live by it - yourself.

If you really believed this system would make you that much more happy, you'd be doing it!
You are purposefully keeping yourself from living in this much happier system?

Well said.

Indeed, I am. And I don't follow what I preach. Does that mean I shouldn't? Or I simply don't? Does that mean you should follow me and 90% of the world because thats the way we were told to live? At least I think for myself and can admit I'm wrong. I'm not telling anyone to do anything. You obviously just believe without money the world would truly stop spinning. NEWS FLASH: it wouldn't!

+1

She s obviously very happy and she isnt hurting anybody.
I love her/it
So who cares what ya'll think....

Peace

No, I just recognize that inanimate pieces of paper and metal can't be the source of all the world's problems.

Besides, there have been moneyless communities before, and the people in them were miserable!

This proves money can't be the source of misery, or these communities would not have had miserable people in them.

So, it's a ridiculous argument.

LINK:
"Fruitlands ultimately failed the winter after it opened, largely due to food shortages and accompanying unrest in the inhabitants."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

You need a majority of the world to prove to you that you can live happily without money before you decide to do so yourself. Which is why you believe you cannot exist without money now, because everyone around you does also. Where does individual thinking come into play? We are all different. 1 rule will never be able to apply to all. The small material benefits money provides are incomprable to the true beauty of life nature yeilds on its own.

Misery is a self made state of being. as all states of being only stem from within. Having money or the lack therefof are not the source of emotions. Your emotional state is determined by you. There is only YOU. You can be happy with or without ANYTHING. That decision is soley up to you my friend

Misery is a self made state of being. as all states of being only stem from within. Having money or the lack therefof are not the source of emotions. Your emotional state is determined by you. There is only YOU. You can be happy with or without ANYTHING. That decision is soley up to you my friend

You seem to refer to others alot. But talk little about yourself. Why do you feel you need to compare yourself to everyone around you? do you not know that you are different from them? What they do shouldn't determine your moves. Take risks and think for yourself.

It's funny...what I got out of the article is the concept of giving what you can and taking only what you need. People get really upset when you bring up getting rid of worldly possessions and comforts and that seems to be all they can focus on. She is providing a service (washing dishes, housekeeping, whatever) in return for a room and food in someones home...so therefore, she is giving what she has in return for what she needs. Pretty simple really...she has no desire to drive a nice car, have a home of her own, or live to work so she can die paying taxes. Honestly, when everyone complains constantly about paying taxes and working for "the man" I would think that the idea of being able to break free from that would be welcomed.

Money is, fundamentally, aa control mechanism and also completely unnecessary. The "power" of each portion of money can and does change from day to day, and there is no guarantee that when you wake up tomorrow, your dollar won't be worth what a penny is worth today.

There are places like Christiania, which set up that sort of give and take, though they can use money if they want---they also can trade things if they prefer.

This is the ideal society, what this woman is doing.

Are you talking to yourself here?
Because it looks like you're describing yourself.

You're the one who thinks getting rid of money is so important, so you should be the one to do it.

I already posted an argument and evidence that you can't refute.



Yeah, it's so amazing that you prefer to sit on the Internet and use a computer over it.

She's no better than the wetbacks...well, she's a legal citizen, but she doesn't help maintain infrastructure by paying taxes, although she uses the infrastructure...she's selfish in my opinion...she can't give to charities or the poor...she only lives to benefit herself.

So money is not the problem and there's is no particular reason why one should give it up to live without it.

Then there is no reason to support or adopt your system since my happiness is determined by ME and ONLY ME and not your system.

Okay, you've refuted your advocacy for your own system.
Now it's clear why you don't even support it.
You don't see it as particularly important as necessary.



Funny that you say all of this, yet you do the opposite though.

So you don't really believe in this rant of yours either.

Ya cuz that whole story was about how she mooches off of others

Did you even read the article? Geeeeezzzzz

Your assumptions are in error, so there's nothing to explain.

I already covered this in a previous post.
Either you missed it or didn't comprehend it.

Or you're just being contradictory and hypocritical, as seems to be your general behavior.

Try again, but this time without making up false accusations.

I am thinking for myself, which is why you're dishonesty and hypocrisy are not convincing me.

You talk as though I have to let you tell me what to think to prove that I'm thinking for myself.

Looks like someone else didnt read the article. Really??? come on now.... She donates her money to charities from the books she writes. For fucks sakes.

Solar panels contain silicium and silver ect. It must be mined and damages the ecosystem in far away lands. Plastic is also used which contains oil. Oil is responsible for many atrocities.